Interstate player pooling: The bill anticipates such arrangements via the definition of “Interactive gaming agreement” – “A negotiated agreement between the Commonwealth and one or more of the states or territories of the United States in which interactive gaming is legally authorized that permits persons located in the other jurisdictions to place wagers on interactive games with licensees in this Commonwealth or to permit persons located in this Commonwealth to place wagers on interactive games with licensees in the other jurisdictions, or both.”

Early test of new Caesars / PokerStars partnership

It will be interesting to parse the public statements, testimony and positions of both companies for clues as to just how close the coordination is – and what, if any, larger relationship might be developing between Caesars and PokerStars’ owner Amaya.

To my knowledge, PokerStars has never identified a land-based partner in Pennsylvania, as opposed to New Jersey, where the company plans to operate in cooperation with Resorts.

Pennsylvania an interesting spot for Adelson

The primary counterweight to the pro-regulation advocacy of Caesars and Amaya is, of course, Sheldon Adelson (Parx head Bob Green has also sounded ambivalent notes about online gambling, but stopped short of outright opposition).

LVS risks alienating the local market by wading into a political issue that is unlikely to resonate with its land-based customers.

Pennsylvania is considering regulating online gambling within the context of a pressing budget shortfall. For many state lawmakers, that consideration (and the political pain of alternative means of closing the gap, e.g., taxes) may outweigh whatever Adelson can place on the other side of the scale.

It will be interesting to see how Adelson and his supporters modulate their approach in Pennsylvania, if at all. Their reactions to the bill in the coming days and approach to the upcoming hearing in April will likely provide clear indications of the strategy to come.